Search

Background. The effectiveness of community-based geriatric intervention models for vulnerable older adults is controversial. We evaluated a problem-based multidisciplinary intervention targeting vulnerable older adults at home that promised efficacy through better timing and increased commitment of patients and primary care physicians. This study compared the effects of this new model to usual care. Methods. Primary care physicians referred older people for problems with cognition, nutrition, behavior, mood, or mobility. One hundred fifty-one participants (mean age 82.2 years, 74.8% women) were included in a pseudocluster randomized trial with 6-month follow-up for the primary outcomes. Eighty-five participants received the new intervention, and 66 usual care. In the intervention arm, geriatric nurses visited patients at home for geriatric assessment and management in cooperation with primary care physicians and geriatricians. Modified intention-to-treat analyses focused on differences between treatment arms in functional abilities (Groningen Activity Restriction Scale-3) and mental well- being (subscale mental health Medical Outcomes Study [MOS]-20), using a mixed linear model. Results. After 3 months, treatment arms showed significant differences in favor of the new intervention. Functional abilities improved 2.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-4.2) and well-being 5.8 points (95% CI, 0.1-11.4). After 6 months, the favorable effect increased for well-being (9.1; 95% C1, 2.4-15.9), but the effect on functional abilities was no longer significant (1.6; 95% CI, 0.7 to 3.9). Conclusions. This problem-based geriatric intervention improved functional abilities and mental well-being of vulnerable older people. Problem-based interventions can increase the effectiveness of primary care for this population. Key Words: Primary health care--Frailty--Health services research--Multidimensional geriatric assessment--Health services for the aged.

Background. There is growing interest in geriatric care for community-dwelling older people. There are, however, relatively few reports on the economics of this type of care. This article reports about the cost-effectiveness of the Dutch Geriatric Intervention Program (DGIP) compared to usual care in frail older people at 6-month follow-up from a health care system's point of view. Methods. We conducted this economic evaluation in an observer-blind randomized controlled trial (Dutch EASY care Study: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00105378). Difference in treatment effect was calculated as the difference in proportions of successfully treated patients (prevented functional decline accompanied by improved well-being). Incremental treatment costs were calculated as the difference in mean total care costs. The incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as total cost per successful treatment. Bootstrap methods were used to determine confidence intervals (CI) for these measures. Results. The average cost of the intervention under study (DGIP) was 998 euros (95% CI, 888-1108). The increment in total cost resulting from DGIP was a little over 761 euros (3336 to 4687). Hospitalization and institutionalization costs were less: home care, adult day care, and meals-on-wheels costs were higher. There was a significant difference in proportions of successful treatments of 22.3% (4.3-41.4). The number needed to treat was approximately 4.7 (2.3-18.0). The ICER is 3418 euros per successful treatment (21,458 to 45,362). The new treatment is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of 34,000 euros. Conclusion. The results of this economic evaluation suggest that DGIP is an effective addition to primary care for frail older people at a reasonable cost.